User talk:Lupo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I'm extremely busy off-Wikipedia these days. I may or may not answer promptly, or I may not answer at all. Lupo


2006
Wednesday
13
December

Archives of older talk are listed on the archives page.

Contents


[edit] {{PD-Soviet}}

Greetings, Lupo! Wow, it looks like you've made some enemies, what with the {{PD-Soviet}} hullabaloo. It's hard to imagine that a disagreement about international copyright law could stir up such animosity! Weird. Anyway, thanks for all the hard work you continue to do. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I would have never thought that the issue would be taken personally by some people. It's sad. Lupo 10:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
I award you the Editor's Barnstar as sometimes deletion is the best contribution. I envy your persistence, and want to say that your work towards the really free encyclopedia is very much appreciated. Renata 16:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you to both of you, Renata and Quadell! I appreciate the occasional token of support. But still, I'm not after deletion per se; that's just an unavoidable side-effect in some cases. I want correct (or more correct) tagging in these cases. I just can't stand it if my favourite encyclopedia spreads untruths. (And yes, I consider our image description pages integral parts of the encyclopedia.) With the "really free" part of your comment you've hit the nail on the head, Renata. Lupo 10:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licencing of suicide notes and speeches

Are suicide notes and speeches always in the public domain? Debate at [1] Haukur 23:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhm... give me some time, I'll look into this later. For now, just this off-hand: IIRC right, most countries require a fixation of a work, i.e. only works published in a "tangible" medium are copyrighted. (Performances also are, that falls under "neighbouring rights") So in many countries, speeches are not copyrighted, but printed versions thereof can be. Some other countries do not require fixation; in such countries, even impromptu speeches may be copyrighted. Lupo 10:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
To take a concrete example. Let's say I give a speech at some sort of rally. Someone at the rally tapes my speech without my explicit permission and publishes a transcript of it online. Who holds the copyright to that text? Do I? Does she? Is it in the public domain? What if I publish my own transcript at my website sometime after giving the speech? Would it have to be just before giving the speech to make any difference? Haukur 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh, I don't know. It took me about a year to get up to speed on copyrights for "classical" works such as artworks or photographs; I have until now largely ignored the domain of neighbouring rights as we don't have too many recordings, and most of those we have are music recordings, which are relatively simple (the text, the score, and the performance (concert) must all be out of copyright for something to be PD). But speeches... I just don't know. I fear it'd take me another year to learn the ins and outs of neighbouring rights if I wanted to be able to give answers in that domain with some minimal degree of confidence that I'm not babbling utter nonsense. :-) Sorry...
I can only attempt to answer this based on my general understanding of copyright: I think we have to distinguish spontaneous (or impromptu, to use a French word) and prepared speeches. (And let's assume we're talking about a country that does require "fixation"!)
Let's take the prepared speech first: someone, maybe the orator, first writes down the text. This scriptwriter gets a copyright on that text. As long as the text is not published in printed form, it's an unpublished work, but these can be and are copyrighted, too. If the orator then holds the speech, he gives a performance, on which he has a copyright. Broadcasting or taping and selling a video of the speech without the orator's consent would be a copyright violation. If such a video is made with the orator's OK, the broadcaster or video distributor gets a copyright on that tape (due to creativity such as shots, angles, cuts, zooms, etc.) Thus, if someone publishes a transcript of a prepared speech without the consent of the scriptwriter and possibly the orator, he'd commit a copyright violation, irrespective of whether the text had been published. (Old speeches, where the text would be PD due to age/death of author excepted, of course!)
Spontaneous speeches are a different matter. I think broadcasting or making and then selling a video of a spontaneous speech would be fine even without the orator's consent (think news coverage or a TV documentary, maybe even extended, of some rally or demonstration). The broadcaster or video producer again would get a copyright. The text of the speech, however, would not be covered by copyright. (That would need checking!) Someone taking that video and publishing a transcript of the speech could probably do so, but he wouldn't get a copyright on the text, only on the specific layout used to present that text. (Also would need checking!) If the orator later publishes a collection of his speeches in book form, he gets a copyright on the collection (as a whole) and he already has the copyright of all speeches to which he has written the text himself. If he used a scriptwriter, he certainly had some sort of contract with him: either such speeches would be "works for hire" (with the orator as the employer, who would thus hold the copyright), or he'd need to secure permission to publish from the scriptwriter. But his spontaneous speeches (of which he could have obtained the printable text himself also only by transcribing some record of the event) would remain copyright-free.
Does that make sense? In any case, the issue over at Wikisource seems to be more about suicide notes, which, I guess, typically are written or self-taped videos. I don't see any exception in copyright law for written suicide notes, and self-taped videos also appear to be copyrightable under "neighbouring rights" (the suicide would be the author of the video and have a copyright on that, and, depending on whether he prepared a written statement or acted spontaneously, might or might not even have a copyright on the text of his statement). Even if someone who is about to commit suicide probably has other worries than copyright law, I don't see why such notes should be exempt from copyright. They may be published widely in prominent cases, but I think that falls under the "news reporting" clauses of fair use.
Take the above with a grain of salt, though: I'm not completely sure it all is correct. Maybe try to get one of our lawyers to opine? (I'd ask in private via e-mail; my experience is that they generally don't like to offer any opinions in public.) HTH, Lupo 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just come across this fork of the WikiSource discussion after my weekend writing chemical safety articles. I think the assimilation of suicide notes and political speeches is completely fallacious. There are copyright issues concerning political speeches—they are specifically mentioned in the Berne Convention as an area where national laws may differ—but they pose fewer practical problems than suicide notes. Which politician is going to take the risk of suing for a breach of copyright on a speech which was delivered publically? U.S. case law may provide even more cover: generally, it is permissible to record and reproduce events which occur in public, although I cannot give a good reference. Suicide notes seem to fall into a different category, that of private correspondance (which is recorded in a material form) for which the copyright would pass by testamentary disposition. There seems to be no basis for a presumed licence in the case in question, and in any case most civil law jurisdictions require (most) copyright licences to be in writing. I really do ask myself how people could think that even a U.S. court could come to the opinion that the author of a suicide note wish that the note be diffused without restriction or financial gain (unless, of course, there is such an intention written into the note, in which case there is no argument). We are playing with fire on this one, and for little gain in in the value of WikiSource. Physchim62 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Quite. But I'm concerned about speeches as well (and thanks a lot for your preliminary analysis, Lupo!). Take this speech for example. It was given recently by David Cameron. The source given is the website of the Conservative Party. It's clearly a prepared piece of oratory. Is there any reason to assume this text is in the public domain? Haukur 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not! Nowhere do they say this text were published under a free license. I would guess that it certainly was a prepared speech. A copyright violation at least. Furthermore, doesn't WikiSource have editorial guidelines?? WTF is a current political speech doing on WikiSource? Don't they have some kind of NPOV policy that would forbid that? Sheesh. Kill it. Or have it killed. If it were a historic classic, such as Churchill's "blood, sweat, and tears" speech, OK (if that is PD!), but what's a minor propaganda speech doing on Wikisource? (Disclaimer: I haven't even read it. I don't care about the content. Fact is (a) political speeches always are propaganda for some cause, and (b) it's so recent that it has no historic significance. It's promotional material of the Conservative party, pure and simple.) Lupo 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've now suggested deletion but it's not a question of this one speech. They have lots of speeches where I can't see any claim for a free licence applying, including, as Physchim62 has pointed out, this month's featured text (another recent UK political speech). Haukur 16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Speeches in the UK are under copyright: see wikisource:User:Physchim62/Political speeches for details. Physchim62 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of me doesn't really want to respond here as it really isn't fair to the people at Wikisource, but I want to clarify two things. If you would like to continue to discuss this with me please do so at Wikisource.

  1. When the copyright of speeches was brought up previously, I was seriously concerned about this issue. I asked Brad because I wanted to be able have something authoritative regarding deleting these. I asked particularly about political speeches. He emailed me a response explaining that and oration is not a publication. That copyright will never be clear in many cases. It was not the sort of answer that I felt authorized me to delete speeches against the wishes of the community. And as long as there significant doubt about whether these are copyvios, such actions would clearly be against the community's wishes. I personally feel about 75% certain that speeches are OK and I think others are more confident as I am one of the more conservative opinions on copyright.
  2. Wikisource does not have an NPOV policy. Our requirement is simply that you must provide the complete publication. No selective editing allowed. If think about it a minute, you will realize there is next to nothing we would be able to accept if we only allowed documents with a neutral point of view. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The Dakota 1880s.jpg

Hey Lupo, I noticed you uploaded this pic and it is still under {{PD}} which is in a wierd state. Do you think I can change the template on this pic to {{PD-old}}? Can I also bring it to the Commons or would you like to do that? DVD+ R/W 16:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You should also add more source info to it, but you already know that ;-) DVD+ R/W 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Thanks for pointing it out to me; some of my early uploads have rather poor descriptions. I should go re-check them...
I added all the info I could find and changed the tag to {{PD-US}}, which is provably correct. To be able to use {{PD-old}}, we would need to research who the photographer was. If he died more than 70 years ago (quite possible), we could upload it to the commons under commons:Template:PD-old (and tag it here as {{PD-old-70}}); if he died more than 100 years ago (somewhat less likely), the image would be even eligible for our {{PD-old}}. If we could show that it's indeed an anonymous work (e.g. by asking the New York Historical Society whether they knew the photographer and getting a negative answer), it'd also be eligible for PD-old both here and on the commons. I'm not going that extra mile, {{PD-US}} with a comment indicating this state of affairs is good enough for me.
If you want to upload it to the commons, be my guest. I'm unfortunately on a rather slow link, so working with images is a royal pain at times. Lupo 09:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded it to the commons (as PD-US). Lupo 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-Poland

I was wondering if you knew anything about {{PD-Poland}}? As I understand it, if an image was first published in Poland (not jointly published in Poland and other countries) after December 31, 1922 , and before May 23, 1994, and if it was first published without a © notice, then it's in the public domain. But maybe not: someone has suggested that U.S. law might consider these images copyrighted even if Poland does not. And some court cases apparently ruled that a book's © covers every previously unpublished image in the book, although there's difference of opinion here, and Polish law does not use stare decisis. Since it's very hard to tell what the first publishing of an image was, and whether it had a © note on it or not at the time, some say we should assume these photos are copyrighted unless we get evidence to the contrary. But since, in practice, over 90% of these images are not copyrighted, some have said we should assume they are public domain unless we get evidence that they were copyrighted. Do you have an opinion on this? Do you have an further information to share? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Long answer short: looks ok to me at en:, but not at the commons (from a legal point of view). Did I miss something?
First, where does December 31, 1922 come from? Is that from the U.S. "pre-1923" rule? If so, let's just forget about it; we consider anything published pre-1923 {{PD-US}} anyway (regardless of where it was first published), so {{PD-Poland}} should not be applied to such old images anyway or only in addition to PD-US.
Second, it may well be that {{PD-Poland}} is right within Poland itself. But other countries do or did not have any requirement for a © sign; copyright has been automatic in most countries (the U.S. excepted until 1989). Poland joined the UCC on December 9, 1976, it entered in force with respect to Poland on March 9, 1977.[2][3] The UCC indeed allowed formalities, such as requiring a placement of a © sign (article III). Protection follows "national treatment" (article II), but there is an optional "rule of the shorter term" (article IV, 4(a)). Note that article II does not require that a work was copyrighted in Poland: even works uncopyrightable there (e.g. lacking a © notice) could be copyrighted in other UCC members! That means that Polish works without copyright notice may have been copyrighted elsewhere, where no © sign was required, except in countries that did apply that rule of the shorter term. The U.S. also required a © notice and registration until 1989.
Poland's status with respect to the Berne Convention (BC) is unclear to me: the country appears to have joined on January 28, 1920, but the Paris Act of 1971 became effective in Poland only on October 22, 1994.[4] Probably Poland left the Berne Union from 1945 until 1989 under Soviet influence and then re-joined it in 1994. (Compare [5].) Whether Poland existed as such between 1939 and 1945 is open to discussion. My personal view would be that yes, of course it continued to exist, it was just occupied. I don't think the annexation or the partition were internationally accepted. The Russian official view might differ...
So, we have the following periods:
  • from 1920 to 1945 Poland was a member of the Berne Convention. During this time, copyright must have been automatic (as prescribed by the BC), and Polish works were also protected in all other members of the BC, which includes most if not all Western European countries. Even if Poland indeed left the BC in 1945, Polish works from that period remained under copyright in other BC countries (see article 35 of the BC)!
  • from 1945 to 1977 Poland was not part of any international copyright treaties. Polish works were copyrighted abroad only if bilateral agreements existed. I do not know whether that was the case, except for one with Russia from 1974.
  • from March 9, 1977 to October 21, 1994 Poland was a member of only the UCC. Polish works with or without © notice were also copyrighted in other UCC members that did not apply the rule of the shorter term. The U.S. has no rule of the shorter term, and was a UCC member since 1954.
  • since October 22, 1994, Poland is a member of both the UCC and the BC. The BC supersedes the UCC.
In summary: Polish works from 1920 - 1945 are copyrighted in other BC countries of that time. Polish works from 1945 - 1977 are not copyrighted abroad, unless they were still copyrighted in Poland on October 22, 1994, when Poland re-joined the BC. Polish works from 1977 - 1994 may or may not be copyrighted in other UCC countries, and if they were still copyrighted on October 22, 1994, they also became copyrighted in other BC countries.
For the U.S., slightly different rules apply due to the formalities needed in the U.S. until 1989 and the restoration of other works on January 1, 1996 (the URAA). For the U.S., the rules would be: Polish works from before 1977, when Poland joined the UCC, are copyrighted in the U.S. only if they were still copyrighted in Poland on January 1, 1996. Polish works from 1977 - 1994 are copyrighted if they had a © notice (which satisfies the U.S. formalities, see UCC article III(1)). Polish works from 1977 - 1994 without copyright notice are copyrighted in the U.S. only if they were still copyrighted in Poland on January 1, 1996.
In conclusion it appears to me that {{PD-Poland}} is fine for the English Wikipedia: if the template is correct, such pre-1994 works without copyright notice are copyright-free in both Poland and the U.S. because the U.S. also required formalities and the works were not copyrighted in Poland on January 1, 1996 and thus there was no URAA copyright restoration in the U.S. for such works.
However, it also appears to me that the template {{Template:PD-Polish}} needs to be corrected to take care of the explanations above: Polish works without © notice from 1920 - 1945 are copyrighted in other BC countries, and 1977 - 1994 works may be copyrighted in UCC countries that had no formalities and did not implement the rule of the shorter term.
A completely different big problem is indeed to show that the publication occurred without © notice, or that it is a Polish work at all.
Finally, could you provide a pointer to the claim that the U.S. might consider such works copyrighted? Maybe I've overlooked something... Note that this is the first time I've dealt with this matter, so the above may not be correct.
HTH, Lupo 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: yes, a single copyright notice in a book or such is sufficient. One doesn't need to place a © sign next to each image. Lupo 15:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Second addendum: Indeed I've missed something. There was a bilateral treaty between the U.S. and Poland dated February 16, 1927.[6] Depending on what it defined and whether it remained in effect (at least in the U.S.) from 1945 on, the above analysis may need modification. Lupo 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FU#Counterexamples

I wonder what you think about this addition? Is it true? Could you propose some reasoning why? Renata 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Renata, AlisonW claims to have added that after an IRC chat with Jimbo. This precise edit is discussed several times at WT:FU, where reasons are given. I should add to all this discussion there that publishing images not taken in public spaces of non-noteable people might also be a bad idea due to personality rights (see also, if you can read German, de:Recht am eigenen Bild). In general the phrasing appears to have arisen from a desire to tighten the "fair use" rules in an attempt to cut down the overly broad application of "fair use" as a blanket catch-all for copyrighted images. "Fair use" just isn't free. I think it makes sense. For non-noteable people, see above. For noteable people, it should be possible to get truly free images, either by taking them ourselves or by asking nicely for a GFDL or CC release of a professional photographer's (maybe second-best) shot. AFAIK, pros typically shoot several images, but only the best ones ever make it to publication. I must admit I don't know what happens with the rest: are they destroyed? Or is there some "non-competition" rule in photographers' contracts that would prohibit the publication of such "second-best" images? Another problem with celebrity photos under "fair use" is that these images do have a concrete market value (and I even guess that the rarer and better the image is, the higher its value will be), and our publishing such copyrighted images may actually have a detrimental effect on that market value. In some sense, our publishing such images places us in direct competition with the photographer, which is a clear no-no for "fair use" claims. Finally, the rule does not appear to be intended to ban all such images of persons; clearly, there are some where a free replacement would be very hard to get. Lupo 07:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
See my reply on WP:FU talk. Basically, I think it needs much better wording, concrete examples, and that's not U.S. law, but WP policy. As such it should be at Wikipedia;Images of living people. Renata 03:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sydney2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sydney2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 06:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swiss mercenary info

Wow, what a wealth of information you provided on a topic I was not too familiar with -- Swiss mercenary service after the 1520s for nations other than France. I'll put it to good use.Larry Dunn 16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine copyright law

Hello Lupo. I'm befuddled about Philippine copyright law. I was looking through the list of replaceable fair-use images, and I came across Image:Jun magsaysay.jpg, which is tagged {{PhilippinesGov}}. There has been some serious debate about whether images of the Philippine government are in the public domain or not. This is rather important now, since replaceable fair-use images are being deleted.

The template now states, confusingly, that images of the Philippine Government are in the public domain, but may not be used for commercial purposes without the permission of the government. It also says "this must be considered a non-free image". I'm curious how this works with the Berne Convention. I looked up Philippine copyright law and the accompanying external links, and the actual law states "No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit." Baffling.

So what gives? One possible interpretation would be that the "prior approval" requirement is not a copyright restriction (since the works are not under copyright), but are restricted by non-copyright law -- even though it's a part of the same law that defines copyright. This would be similar to the law that you cannot publish for profit images of the Queen in Canada, even if you hold the copyright on them; or that you cannot publicly display a public-domain swastika in Germany; or that you cannot publish images of nude women in Saudi Arabia, regardless of their copyright status; etc. Thus the restriction would not be covered under the Berne treaty, and Wikipedia need not enforce such a requirement, similar to the fact that we do not prevent the display of images of the Queen for Canada's benefit, or images of nude women for Saudi Arabia's. If I'm right, these images should be considered "PD" and "free", not required to pass our "fair use" criteria.

But I'm not sure I'm right. Perhaps the Philippines' definition of copyright is so different that the Berne convention treats government images as if they were copyrighted, even though the text of the law says they are not copyrighted. Could you help shed some light on this? The fates of many images hang in the balance. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you could let me know anything you find out as well. We have several gov't works from the Phillipines on Wikisource. Is there any good place that an index is being kept of these issues? --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I haven't found any commentary on the copyright law of the Philippines. Based on reading only the law and in particular that §176, I think the template as it currently stands is correct: Philippine governmental works are in a "non-commercial public domain". It's a non-commercial-only license, non-free, and such works can be used under fair use only. Excepted are "statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character", which are truly PD. I don't think we could weasel out of this by claiming it wasn't a copyright restriction—after all, that restriction is in the copyright law itself. Lupo 08:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also an exception in the previous article for "texts of a legislative, admistrative or legal nature". There is obviously some sort of copyright-type restriction on reuse (except of excluded texts, i.e. not images), and I would presume that it is internationally enforceable under the Berne Convention. The Philippines definition of copyright is mostly taken straight out of the Berne Convention, apart from this strange Americanism in Sec. 176. In short, for WP images, I agree with the tag. Physchim62 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another image copyright question

I'm concerned about the copyright status of this image. At a first glance, it says that we are 100 years after the author died, which is absurd for a photo purporting to be from the early 20th century, however on closer look there's the sneaky "or less". How much less? Thanks for your help. yandman 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, {{PD-Old}} certainly does not apply to a photo allegedly taken in about 1918. The source web site doesn't say when the image was first published, nor do they say who the photographer was. Thus we cannot ascertain the copyright status of that image in any way. According to the copyright law of Turkey, the general copyright term is 70 years p.m.a (i.e., copyright runs until 70 years after the photographer's death). I have no idea what older versions of the Turkish copyright law or the transitional provisions might have said. The image might be useable under a "fair use" claim, but... the source web site is the Turkish General Staff... I dare say one might be hard pressed to find a more biased source on Armenian issues. Personally, I would use only peer-reviewed papers and books by reputed historians of neither Turkish nor Armenian nationality for anything related to that topic. I don't trust the Turkish General Staff to give even truthful captions. Is there an independent source that would confirm the veracity of their claims? (That's a rhetorical question. Something to consider for people who edit articles on that subject, but not something you needed answer to me—I'm not the least bit interested in getting involved in that dispute.) I guess my recommendation is to not use the image at all. If people decide to use it, they should make a fair use claim. Lupo 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] macroeconomic man

Hey Lupo

I was extremely disappointed to see that you have removed Macroeconomic Man from Wiki. He is a fictional or possibly mythical character who has helped me teach A level Economics to a plethora of students. The concept of macroeconomics is a difficult one to grasp and by imagining a superhero style figure with weapons at his disposal to address the fiscal and monetary issues confronting our democratic society. We were hoping to develop this guy further and can offer additional info and jpegs if you wish to peruse them.

Regards

Dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slifer151 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Joyce images

Lupo, I have a favor to ask, if you don't mind. A few of us are working to save James Joyce's FA status--see Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Joyce. I'm working on the images, and was hoping you could comment on the copyright status of this image, and also the images from here that I mention at the FARC--those cover pages are fine, yes? what about the unknown photographer portraits? I'd be grateful--thanks. Chick Bowen 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You're beautiful, Lupo--I never dreamed of such a detailed and thorough response. I will follow up on all of these and see what I can do--I have a lot of material on Joyce I can sift through to see if I can positively identify Herr Ruf. As for the street photographer--I know I've seen that picture before and if I have I bet it was published before 1978, but my hunch isn't going to cut it. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't happen to know, off the top of your head, whether Irish currency is PD, do you? Chick Bowen 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I don't know. But it's easy to look up. The UNESCO has a collection of about 100 copyright laws from around the world... According to the Irish Copyright Law of 2000, Chapter 24: Copyright: Legal Tender; §200, Irish coins and bank notes are copyrighted, even if issued before that provision became effective (§200(3)); i.e. older coins and bank notes are retroactively placed under copyright. The copyright on legal tender is perpetual, i.e. does not expire at all. (Copied also to your talk page.) Lupo 07:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot, for this and the rest. I replaced the stamps with your crop of the Dubliners title page, which made more sense anyway (thanks for that too--I was getting around to it). Understood about PD-US--I still think we're vastly better off than we were claiming the 1904 photo was PD-US when it wasn't. But I see your point--if the Ehrenzweig photo is PD worldwide, that really would be better. That's the photo on the cover of the Ellman biography, but there's no indication of copyright, only an acknowledgment for the physical photograph (Morris Library, Southern Illinois University Carbondale). Chick Bowen 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anymous works in the US published prior to 1976

I would appreciate it if you share any information you might have on the copyright of these kinds of works. I am quite certain that they are copyrighted after 1976, but I do not know about earlier works, especially those that were not traditionally published. I am in particular thinking of the Zodiac Killer Letters. The other problem is that I am unsure exactly when they were published although I think it is unlikely any were not published until after 1976. It is a strange situation and I wonder if you could take a look at it whenever you have a chance.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you following me around? :-) I don't mind if it were so... it's just quite some coincidence that you should ask about this particular topic one day after I mentioned it at User talk:Chick Bowen#Joyce images. (Even though I must have had a blackout then; we were discussing a non-US image.)
Anyway... first off, I think you mean "published prior to 1978". The United States Copyright Act of 1976 became effective on January 1, 1978. That's the crucial date, not 1976.
From what I have been able to find out, placing a copyright notice was enough to secure copyright, although it might have been a tad difficult to enforce that copyright without registration. (See 1909 Copyright Act, Ch. 1, sec. 10: Publication of work with notice.) Renewal also would probably not have been possible without registration. I do not know whether there were ways by which an anonymous work could be registered at the U.S. Copyright Office. (Maybe through the publisher, acting on behalf of the anonymous author, and enforcing the rights on his or her behalf?)
Assuming that prior to 1978 anonymous works could not be registered (and thus not renewed), they could be copyrighted only for the first 28-year term by placing a © notice on the work. That'd mean that any such anonymous U.S. work that carried a © notice would be PD in the U.S. if it was published before 1964 (see United States Copyright law for a brief explanation of that somewhat strange date).
Concerning the Zodiac files, we're in the clear anyway. As U.S. works published without a © notice before 1978, they're PD in the U.S. Whether they're PD elsewhere depends on whether a foreign country applies the "rule of the shorter term" to U.S. works. On that question, see also the various discussions at the commons on {{PD-US}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}.
For anonymous works originally published abroad, it depends on whether the work was still coyprighted on the URAA date (1996 in most cases). If the work was still copyrighted in 1996 in its country of origin, it is also copyrighted in the U.S. How this works with anonymous works, I do not know exactly (and that's what I meant on Chick Bowen's talk page). Would the restored copyright in the U.S. of an anonymous foreign work that was published abroad before 1978 follow the U.S. post-1978 rules (95 years since publication or 120 years since creation, whichever is earlier), or would it fall under the U.S. pre-1978 rules that I tried to come to grips with above? I don't know.
HTH, Lupo 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
lol It is funny how these issues pop up. I was certain these were copyrighted orphaned works until some reminded me about the "pulbished without a © notice" detail. Now just to go over the nitty-gritty details here. I guess I am hung up about the word "published". Certainly the the newspapers which published these notes had © notices. Or does sending a letter to an editor count as "publishing" the hand(or type)-written work? What about a note carved into a table of a public libary (without a © notice, of course)? Does that count as published? Am I just overthinking this whole issue? Thanks for all your help! --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh... in my opinion, sending a letter to a newspaper with the intent that it be printed is a form of publication. But the original copyright holder clearly is the author of the letter, not the newspaper. I think a newspaper is a form of compilation in the sense of 17 USC 101; the copyright on the newspaper does not extend on the individual contributions that make up the collection (17 USC 103). Articles written by staff journalists employed by the newspaper are works made for hire: on those, the newspaper does hold the copyright under U.S. law. But that doesn't apply to readers' letters. The note carved into a table at school or the public library or a park bench is IMO not published. Publication, as it is defined in U.S. law, is to offer copies of the work for dissemination to the general public, but a carved note exists only once. (See 17 USC 101 again. The language used is somewhat weird, it requires that the dissemination of copies of the work be by means of sale or other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending. I guess disseminations free of charge are covered by "other transfer of ownership".) I'd even dare question whether it was a copyrightable "work" in the first place. (And in any case, I doubt such carvings would be of any use to any Wikimedia project :-) Lupo 10:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: Other countries may define "publication" slightly differently. While an exhibition of a painting is not a publication in the U.S. (no copies), it may be considered a publication in other countries. Similar for oral works (we've been through that when we talked about speeches...). The dissemination of an exhibition catalogue containing an image of a painting does constitute "publication" in the meaning of the U.S. law: a photographic reproduction is considered a copy of a painting. Lupo 10:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice! We actually have the carved message on WS currently as it is purported to be done by the Zodiac killer. Although I don't know why poeple feel they could know such a thing. But I imagine it add to the mass hysteria at the time.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As a general rule, "publication" in the U.S. involves making copies: the current formulation of the definition is
"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. 17 U.S.C. 101
Publication has to be with the "authority of the copyright owner" to have an effect on copyright protection: otherwise, the work is automatically protected by 17 U.S.C. 104 and 303. A notice on the title page of a book or newspaper is sufficient to cover all photographs which are included within (old 17 U.S.C. 20). Physchim62 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Publication has to be with the "authority of the copyright owner" to have an effect on copyright protection: otherwise, the work is automatically protected by 17 U.S.C. 104 and 303. This statement is limited to post-1978, right? Before 1978 there would be no automatic copyright. A notice on the title page of a book or newspaper is sufficient to cover all photographs which are included within (old 17 U.S.C. 20). Is this limited to photographs? What about text?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
On the first point: if the work is unlawfully published, it continues to be "unpublished" in the sense of the law. I don't know whether unpublished works were copyrighted under the 1909 act (I thought the copyright term began to run when the work was published with © notice, see old 17 USC 19 - 21), but in any case, the author of a work had the right to prevent publication against his will (old 17 USC 2). But this is not important for letters to the editor; these clearly are sent in with the intent to see them published.
On Physchim's second point: no, that's not limited to images. Follow the link he provided: it's a general rule. One © notice is and was sufficient for any book, and covers everything in that book that was original. (The copyright on the book did not and does not, of course, preempt an existing copyright on some part of the book. If a copyrighted image by some photographer A (who holds the copyright) is published in a book by B, then B's copyright on the book does not invalidate A's copyright on the image. B would have had to license the image from A. And if A's image was PD, B's copyright also did not extend to the image: the image would remain PD. The same holds if the book is, e.g., a collection of writings from different authors. The copyright on the book in that case covers only the selection, arrangement, preface, and other original material.)
But back to the alleged Zodiac carving: let's assume that (a) Zodiac indeed was the author, (b) it qualifies indeed as a "work". It was not "published" by Zodiac as there were no copies. Was it created with the intent that it was published? Probably. Was the carving created legally? Probably not. I'd bet that there's some U.S. law that prohibits defacing public (or other) property such as tables in public libraries. (Compare with Graffiti... another category where we don't know exactly whether illegally created works may be eligible to copyright!) Does a third-party publisher (photographer, newspaper) who publishes a photo of the carving get a copyright? Yes, because it's a three-dimensional structure (especially if enough of the table is also visible), and lighting issues may suffice to give the photographer a copyright. Is the third-party photographer publishing the work legally? Strictly speaking, probably not. However, one could also argue that Zodiac's carving onto (or rather, into) a table was done with the intent that the message be published: it's a contrived way to get the messge to the press. He could also just have sent a letter to the editor. (Maybe he was out of change for a postage stamp?) So, we could give the photographer the benefit of doubt and let him off the hook, declaring his publication of the image of the carving legal. Remains the question of who took the photo, and what's the license of the photo? (And, as you alluded to, where's the proof that it's indeed a message from Zodiac, but that's a question of verifiability, not one of copyright.) Lupo 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
OK I am following you this far. The Zodiac letters mailed: The newspapers copyright notice does not override the handwritten "publication" without a notice placing the text in the public domain. The Zodiac? carving: The image is a problem. However what about a transcription of the text alone? This I am thinking in not copyrighted. Should we condsider the message itself uncopyrightable or public domain because of no notice? --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(De-indent) Ok, I've finally seen the image of that "carving" (in the last few days, images on Wikimedia sites including Wikisource didn't load for me, so I was "flying blind"). s:Image:ZodiacsPoem.jpg doesn't look like a carving... more like he just scribbled with a pencil on the table. Anyway, the text itself is certainly creative enough to be copyrightable. The image itself does not show the table as such, and if it really is only scribbled, the lighting issue vanishes, and the image would be a 2D reproduction falling under Bridgeman. So the image is fine, and we're back to the question of the copyright on the text and whether it was legally published. If we're ready to say that the photographer's publishing the image was legal, we can just as well treat the poem as published (based on the theory that it was created with the intent to be published, see above: "a contrived way to get the message to the press"). This is a bit shaky, of course, but I'd be willing to go along with that. If we say it was published, that happened without copyright notice, and thus it'd be PS-US-no-notice. But that's just my personal opinion. (The kinds of things that crop up in Wikimedia projects could drive the most experienced copyright lawyer nuts :-) Note that the image still needs a source (currently, it's a candidate for {{subst:nsd}}), and there should be an explanation somewhere why this poem signed "rh" is thought to have been written by Zodiac. Lupo 08:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, you are considering that the handwritten letters sent to the editor were "published" under U.S. law? I am tempted to go with this argument in this case, as the intention to be made public (and hence to have copies made) is quite obvious. I agree in general with your copyright analysis above: as you say, such things are a minor nightmare! Physchim62 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think letters to the editor (whether hadwritten or typed is immaterial) that indeed are printed in a newspaper are "published". (In general, not only considering the Zodiac case!) The intent to publish is so clear that one could probably even talk of a license to publish being granted to the newspaper. Don't newspapers even say so in their rules for letters to the editor? Something like "By sending a letter to the editor, you agree to have it published in our newspaper unless you make an explicit mention to the contrary. We are not obliged to print your letter, and we reserve the right to cut your text." is standard where I live. If U.S. law or practice is different, I'd really like to know. I do not consider letters in general to be published; only letters to the editor of a periodical, sent with the intent that they were printed and that were actually printed. And anyway, this is only interesting for us for letters to the editor printed before 1978. Later letters to the editor, although also published, are coyprighted by the writer even if they have no notice of copyright. (I have yet to see any letter to the editor with a © sign—I guess any newspaper would just refuse to publish such a letter.) Lupo 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If you meant with "in this case" that table message of Zodiac and my somewhat shaky "intent to publish" reasoning, I fully agree: I'm willing to go along with that reasoning in this case, but I wouldn't extend it tel quel to other graffiti. (In essence, it's a graffito...) Lupo 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Col. William P. Benedict

This is from the author of the book "Born To Fly". Anytime that I find a source that says that Col. Joseph O. Fletcher was the pilot and in charge of North Pole Expidition I try and correct it. Sometime's I see where it has worked and other times ignored. One thing I will give Col. Fletcher credit for is telling the truth.

William Benedict Jr. did a fine job trying to get the editor of the Polar Times to correct his mistake. Only as the result of the letter from Col. Fletcher to the editor was a correction made. This mistake has been so ingrained over time, it has become the truth more times than I care to tell or even know about.

I never new that these Wikipedia edits had so much depth in them. Never heard of Lupo until I looked at the Benedict article. I was amazed to see my books cover on this site. What joy came over me.

Then today I decided to click on Lupo. I thought what the h--- is a Lupo. Then I started looking at the various edits that made the article grow. Amazing.

Thank you so much. Charles B. Compton

Thank you. That's an awfully nice way of telling me that I had forgotten to clarify this in the article on William P. Benedict. The article on Joseph O. Fletcher already explained it correctly, giving Benedict as the pilot. I have, however, removed the little advertisement.
You might also want to look at this earlier discussion about Benedict and Fletcher: some grad student is looking for more information. (At least he was, back in March 2006). Lupo 23:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book covers

Hello, Lupo, thanks again for your help with Joyce. I have another question--I hope you don't mind. I've started a project here to replace fair use images of book covers with PD ones where possible. Would you mind taking a quick look and making sure I haven't declared anything PD that isn't? Sherool brought up the question of non-US books from before 1923 at WT:FU. Incidentally, though the list is a little jumbled they tend to get older as they go down. Thanks. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 01:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, the general consensus is to apply the pre-1923 rule to all works, even to works first published outside of the U.S. In the U.S., any work published before 1923 anywhere in any language is in the public domain if it was published with a copyright notice. The pre-1923 rule also applies to works first published outside of the U.S. without a © notice, if they were published in English. It does not apply to works first published outside of the U.S. without a © notice in a foreign language: such works are PD for sure in the U.S. only if they were first published before 1909. All works first published outside of the U.S. in any language without © notice are also PD in the U.S. if they were already out of copyright in their country of origin on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases). See Peter Hirtle's chart, footnote 11.
On a quick scan, I didn't see any errors in your list of bad book covers. Good idea, BTW. After Dubliners, I didn't even pause to think about whether there might be more cases like that. Evidently, you did. Thank you! Lupo 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That was my thinking, too--thanks for the clarification, and for the quick scan of my list. Yes, 'twas you gave me the idea! See you around. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translations at Wikisource

The short answer is Yes. The long answer is that Wikisource has for too long been a dumping ground for drive-by transwiki's without enough dmins to kee up. Currentyly I am systematically looking for texts that need to be tagged with translator? and I started with Authors-A but I am trying to do some category work I look through them and it is slow going. Personally I am trying to only put translator? on texts which I think are not copyvio in the original language rather than categorically tagging all foriegn laws or National Anthems. But that information is not always easy to come by.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) BTW We currently have a very active Russian Translator at Wikisource, s:User:Dmitrismirnov, who you might ask for help getting a GFDL translation. He really is doing a lot of poetry and may not be interested but it is worth a try. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: On Images

Dear Lupo -Thanks for all your adcie and editing. Much appreciated. Cheers Simon Fieldhouse —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonfieldhouse (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/u/p/User_talk%7ELupo_3c24.html"